Slashdot Mirror
Senate Democrats Plan To Force Vote On Net Neutrality (engadget.com)
Senator Edward J. Markey tweeted earlier today that Democrats will force a floor vote to restore net neutrality rules on May 9th. "[Democrats] had the signatures in favor of restoring the rules since January, along with a companion House bill (with 80 co-sponsors)," reports Engadget. "Senator Edward J. Markey also introduced a formal Congressional Review Act 'resolution of disapproval' in February." From the report:
Of course, this last-ditch attempt to save net neutrality can only help congressional supporters of as they move into mid-term elections. "We're in the homestretch in the fight to save net neutrality," Senator Chuck Schumer said in a statement. "Soon, the American people will know which side their member of Congress is on: fighting for big corporations and ISPs or defending small business owners, entrepreneurs, middle-class families and every-day consumers." Still, even if the Senate passes the Democrat's proposal, notes Politico, it's unlikely it would get through the House or avoid a Trump veto. Also taking place on May 9, net neutrality activists and websites like Etsy, Tumblr, Postmates, Foursquare and Twilio will post "red alerts" to protest the FCC's effort to roll back net neutrality protections.
Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.
The problem with all this is the government. More government isn't going to fix it. Only distort it more. Open the polls, remove anit-competition laws many cities and states have. This will allow more companies into the market and the problem will be fixed in the long term. The way it is now, only a select few are capable of entering the market and maintains the status quo. More GOOD will come from opening up the infrastructure, the giant companies have lawyers and will simply find work around to what they want.
It is so sad watching ppl freak out over revoking of Title II status. Title II is the absolute WRONG way to address net neutrality. It simply doesn't need it. It can be done entirely without it. Title II is nothing more than a power grab by the government, those that don't see this are either on board with this, or intentionally ignorant. It wasn't needed for most of the existence of the internet. It isn't needed now. Probably never will be needed.
It doesn't matter what I think - I just want to read the bill instead of just jumping on board the meme train to false narrative-ville.
You know, like how the "Affordable Care Act" turned out to be anything but affordable and the "Patriot Act" was about the most unpatriotic thing ever.
Partisan hacks gonna partisan hack I suppose.
The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN, so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.
Have you read the proposed bill? Then how on earth can you be for or against it?
I say that not because the vote going one way or the other is essentially meaningless, but even the posturing itself is meaningless.
No-one outside of a few tech nerds really care about Net Neutrality at all, not even as an abstract concept.
If anyone did care, Facebook would not even be a thing. But just as people do not really care about online privacy, they also do not actually care about Network Neutrality - and here's the funny thing (to me), they don't even care IF THEY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. Tech people keep thinking if they explain it right people will magically care. WRONG, they mostly understand just fine - but they still do not care. And that is what freaks out tech busybodies the most...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the bill requires more regulations and laws for small ISPs to compete, then it's no better than Obama's last move in 2015 that destroyed several of them. For the big guys, hiring lawyers is a small relative cost but for the small ISPs that can be a killer.
These dishonest political tactics are exactly how you got Trump, by the way.
Dishonest political tactics like refusing to confirm the president's SCOTUS nominee? For the first time ever in the history of this country?
Remind me please, my memory is a little fuzzy. Which party pulled that dishonest political tactic?
Which party has been in control of the house and the senate for the last five years?
Maybe you want to try a little personal honesty? Who knows, you might like it. It actually feels good when you do.
Right, because conservatives NEVER passed symbolic legislation under Obama...
Remind me how many times Obamacare repeal was voted on by the house under Obama with no chance of being pushed through?
Which small ISPs were destroyed by Net Neutrality? Were they smaller than 100,000 subscribers?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It's just politics. They know they will lose since every vote these days is about doing what their party bosses tell them to do, not what they think is best fo the country. They want the vote because then they can point fingers at their opponents in the upcoming elections. I'm all for net neutrality, but it's going to eventually die from extreme swamp exposure.
"Restore" means jack shit:
* Restore prohibition? (bad)
* Restore an antique? (good)
Likewise, WTF is "neutrality " ? It raises these questions:
* WHAT _isn't_ neutral?
* HOW did it end up not being neutral?
* WHY should it be?
A more descriptive title would go a LONG ways.
Have you read the proposed bill?
No. Why should I? It is not going to pass, so it doesn't matter what it says.
Then how on earth can you be for or against it?
I am not for or against it.
Actually, unless you are very, very careful, if you 'restore' an antique you destroy it's value entirely. The original varnish on an antique chair is very important. There is a 'patina' that is a big part of what matters to people who care about antiques. Usually all you can do is apply furniture polish, and it had better be a type of the period of the antique.
You have a terrible reading comprehension problem.
Hell, I'm probably just responding to a crapflooder.
Do you want more Trump? Because this is how you get more Trump.
I think it rather shows Democrats are in a pinch -- what with the polls that even Millennials are dropping support -- if they are looking to scrape a few votes from an odd independent or even republican who care about NN posturing more than about everything else. My guess is this move will have a low ROI.
Yeah, its not the best example.
Maybe restore a retro console to be working again, would have been a better example.
Also taking place on May 9, net neutrality activists and websites like Etsy, Tumblr, Postmates, Foursquare and Twilio will post "red alerts" to protest the FCC's effort to roll back net neutrality protections.
Those "red alerts" will really make a difference!
Ken
Remind me how many times democrats mocked the republicans for symbolic votes...
Doing that which you used to mock doesn't inoculate you from being mocked when you do it!
Ken
80% of voters support NN
I doubt even 20% of voters know what Net Neutrality is - they simply support it because they heard the trump administration was against it.
Ken
the point is to get the votes on record. The Obamacare repeals were genuine symbolism. Everybody knew where everybody else stood on Obamacare. But with NN lots of folks have said they support it without doing anything to support it. This will at least put them on record as a 'nay' when it came time to save it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The really funny thing is they couldn't get it repealed even after getting all of Congress and the presidency.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
MOST people voted Democrat last election chump
Seems reality still hasn't sunk into the Conservative head space.
No, we get more Trump by allowing liars to pretend Hillary didn't get 2.86 million MORE votes
AND the House Democrats got 8.8 million MORE votes, yet Republican Gerrymanders took that away as well.
You mean implementing the Biden Rule? It wasn't the first time in history. It just happened to Democrats this time, so they raised a stink about Republicans using their own tactics against them.
There is no such thing as the Biden Rule. Certainly Joe Biden suggested it way back in 1992, but it was never presented as a serious Senate Rule, nor was it ever ratified in anyway by the Senate and in fact there was no SCOTUS vacancy at the time.
The worst you can say is Biden was hypocritical when he spoke out about the Garland nomination, but lets be honest, back then no one took any notice of the statement, not me, not the media, not the Senate and not even the GOP at time.
The fact that you brought it up at all tells me Senate Republicans had no leg to stand on and simply highlights the fact that every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.
MOST people voted Democrat last election chump
Which is why the democrats continued to lose seats at every level of government. Boy oh boy, that's some brilliance.
Om, nomnomnom...
You seem to be confused on basic aspects of American government, such as how the popular vote is irrelevant. This is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, 80% support net neutrality, but is it an important enough issue for them to vote for a particular candidate on it?
I have a feeling the numbers are a lot softer on that question, which is why we never see it quoted, and there's still any form of debate whatsoever. The candidates know the answer to that one - very few of these asshats will likely lose their seat over NN alone, but it might be the icing on their goodbye cake if they are in a tight race.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You only get long bill titles when it can be tweaked into a cute acronym, like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or as we know it, the "USA PATRIOT Act".
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.
So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.
Dear troll,
So, who's paying you, Russia, or the telecoms? I mean, you're not stupid enough to bite your nose to spite your face (or your wallet) for free, are you?
Do you *really* doubt that the Republicans are a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaires? Really? Prove they're not.
Admit it. The original purpose behind the electoral college is no longer relevant in this century. If the electoral college never existed and was ONLY NOW proposed, let's say by Democrats, they would be *ridiculed* by Republicans to no end. It's so sad everything has become this divisive between two political labels.
Nope. If you were trying to get all the states to join into a constitutional agreement today, you'd still need something like the electoral college to get the small states to join in and agree to it just like then. Doubtful the Democrats would be proposing it because they do not currently benefit from it; it would be the Republicans.
every time someone says "Both parties do it!", it is usually because a Republican has done something crappy.
So, what you're saying is it's ok to do shady and dirty tricks until republicans do it.. Then it magically becomes bad and it no longer matters that your side did it first. Yep that sounds about right.
Nope, you totally missed the point. What I said was, it is usually Republicans who are doing the crappy things.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's not at all how you made that sound. You made it sound like it's always democrats doing crappy things, and everything is good until a republican does the same crappy thing then claims the other party did it when there's outrage.
And tRump got even less votes, with less votes for Repubican than for DEmocrat.
Nice try.
oh, btw, Reagan AND Clinton had majorities.
Not irrelevant since the 14th Amendment
One day, the SCOTUS will have to look this in the face, and the "feature" to promote slave states over the majority will be ended.
Meanwhile it remains important to remind Americans that WE are smarter than the minority rule voters.
Nope.
We have the 14th Amendment where ALL states agreed ALL citizens had equal rights, and therefore the EC is unconstitutional on its face.
Your post is functionally equivalent to stating that you are Constitutionally illiterate regarding how US Federal elections work.
Hey! Look!
A new Clinton wave is coming this spring
It looks like Hillary 2020 could be coming! There's your chance for a "do over."
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Oh so suddenly you have some sort of moral compass when it comes to symbolic legislation? Tell ya what sport... I'll give democrats the exact same degree of outrage you gave the GOP for Obamacare repeals.. sounds fair doesn't it?
Which original purpose? The appropriate Federalist paper explained in detail why the EC would never vote for Trump, so any such purpose is no longer relevant (and hasn't been for a couple of centuries). Another original purpose, less publicized at the time, was to give slave states more say in picking the President. That's irrelevant now. Any other original purpose is speculative at best.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's a cheap way to generate issues to use against Republican Senators. Since the I is low, the ROI is likely to be reasonably high.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A Democrat suggested doing a crappy thing. Democrats as a whole didn't go along. Then, Republicans decided to adopt that crappy thing.
(It isn't failure to endorse. The Senate has not confirmed all nominations. The issue is failure to even consider a nominee.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Affordable Care act provided health insurance that tens of millions of people could afford. My best guess is that it had to do with the state governments, so governments that worked with the ACA got reasonably good results while governments that didn't got bad results, just as they wanted. I'm not saying it's a good system, because it isn't, but it helped lots of people.
As far as the Net Neutrality bill goes, it's going nowhere and so it doesn't really matter what it says. The purpose is to get names of people who are for or against NN and use that as a campaign issue.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So It is now obvious that you can not or will not read Amendment 14. Well that figures.
We know "how" elections work, and we know that the Constitution, Amendment 14 forbids elections that way.
You pay for the shelf space in the mind of the voters. If you put cruddy items in there the cost goes up. When you are calling people to attention, I isn't that low at all.
Let's revisit this in 6 months. My guess is there will be energy spent over this with virtually nothing to show for it. Energy that Democrats could spend better, if they could see how.
It's another available campaign tactic. It is likely to prove at least somewhat useful in a few races. It's cheap, and it's at least a slight wedge between Republican congresscritters and most of the US public.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
First you ignored my assertion that most people have no idea what NN is, then you said something that is just asinine:
Trump's the only post-Civil War president to overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to the Confederacy after all.
How did he overtly and brazenly declare allegiance to a non-existent entity?
It's hard to take you seriously when you spout such nonsense.
Ken
With apologies to Inigo Montoya, . . you keep referring to that Amendment. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or is that inconceivable?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell